Dynamic Hip Screw and Proximal Femoral Nailing As a Surgical Treatment of Peritrochanteric Fracture of Femur-A Comparative Study

Singh, Sanjeev Kumar; Hembram, Sanjeev Kumar; Singh, Anjali; Nag, Dr. Prof. Subrata

doi:10.9790/0853-131122225

IOSRJDMS

2014

DOI: 10.9790/0853-131122225

|View full text |Cite

Dynamic Hip Screw and Proximal Femoral Nailing As a Surgical Treatment of Peritrochanteric Fracture of Femur-A Comparative Study

Sanjeev Kumar Singh¹,

Sanjeev Kumar Hembram²,

Anjali Singh³

et al.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2022

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

A Prospective, Comparative Study Between the Use of the Proximal Femoral Nail and Trochanteric Support Plate for Management of Pertrochanteric Hip Fracture

Sharma

Pathak

et al. 2022

Journal of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences University

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The proximal femoral nail (PFN) and dynamic hip screw with trochanteric support plate are two implants used in the management of pertrochanteric hip fracture. In this study, we try to find out if one implant is better than the other. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 patients were included with 20 each in both the groups between August 2016 and February 2018 in this prospective observational study. All patients were recorded and analyzed for the length of incision (LoI), period of hospitalization (PoH), blood loss, time of union (ToU), duration of surgery (DoS), Parker and Palmer mobility score (PPMS), and Harris hip score (HHS). Results: PFN was found to have a statistical advantage over TFN in terms of LoI (6.4 vs. 14.7 cm.), DoS (70.65 vs. 105.25 min), blood loss (97.25 vs. 294.0 ml), ToU (14.9 vs. 17 days), and PoH (18.1 vs. 21.6 days). While PPMS (7.05 vs. 6.5) was comparable in both groups, HHS (90.25 vs. 81.6) was better in the PFN group. Conclusions: PFN was found to be a better minimally invasive implant for pertrochanteric fractures when closed reduction is possible in terms of LoI, PoH, ToU, DoS, blood loss, and HHS but not for PPMS.

show abstract

A Prospective, Comparative Study Between the Use of the Proximal Femoral Nail and Trochanteric Support Plate for Management of Pertrochanteric Hip Fracture

Sharma

Pathak

et al. 2022

Journal of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences University

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Dynamic Hip Screw and Proximal Femoral Nailing As a Surgical Treatment of Peritrochanteric Fracture of Femur-A Comparative Study

Cited by 1 publication

References 8 publications

A Prospective, Comparative Study Between the Use of the Proximal Femoral Nail and Trochanteric Support Plate for Management of Pertrochanteric Hip Fracture

A Prospective, Comparative Study Between the Use of the Proximal Femoral Nail and Trochanteric Support Plate for Management of Pertrochanteric Hip Fracture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About